Why Belle Greve as the preferred reclamation site?

I should like to question why Belle Greve North has been selected as the ‘preferred’ site for land reclamation, when:

A. BGN/Longue Hougue South ranks as far down as eighth in the cost-banding list of 19 shortlisted options (some of which cannot possibly be deemed as credible options – I cite Havelet Bay and Albecq as just two examples);

B. The shortlisted area to the north side of the Bridge could allow the possibility of a tanker berth, especially useful to the island, as very few tankers at all can currently berth in St Sampson’s Harbour, particularly as we rely on tankers to deliver so much oil-based fuel.

C. The QE2 marina has an area beyond, in the direction of other islands, which was favoured as the best option by the last States PSD. What has changed since to alter the opinions of current States members? I wonder if this is just an attempt for current Environment & Infrastructure members to put their own personal stamp on what was already a plan that probably wasn’t broke and that didn’t need fixing?

D. Les Vardes quarry has, by far and above, the greatest capacity for landfilling with inert waste (with well over 30 years’ worth of infill space), especially as current claims re. needing to use it for increased water storage in the future are questionable/avoidable.

E. Les Vardes quarry could quite feasibly begin to be filled in straight away if necessary, whilst still quarrying the remaining granite.

F. Ronez will soon be quarrying the entire Chouet headland. Therefore, Les Vardes quarry will soon become available for landfill. In addition, since the States paid Ronez in the past to take over Mont Cuet before quarrying was complete, I see no reason as to why they might not consider doing the same with Les Vardes, if option E) were not possible.

G. Extending the current landfill at Mont Cuet could also be a valid alternative. Since an expensive new weighbridge has recently been installed there, and with recycling green waste and household waste facilities already in place, any reclaimed land could easily accommodate further heavy industry without affecting dense housing population and with the nearest current dwellings being much further away from any new site than would be the case at Belle Greve North.

H. Some people seem to have forgotten that Belle Greve area is an almost exclusively residential community. The presence of some industry in a certain localised area north of this should not mean that the States has carte blanche to extend industrial zones without any regard for the impact on this very busy and thriving place that is home to so many. I trust that the deputies we voted for will give great and due consideration to irretrievable consequences that this proposed development would result in.

MRS RACHEL CARPENTIER,

The Wing,

Bulwer Avenue,

St Sampson’s